A peer-reviewed study (Meyer and Hilbeck,
2013)[1]
concluded that double standards were used by the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA) in evaluating the Séralini study. The authors applied the criteria EFSA
used for evaluating the Séralini study to two Monsanto publications on the same
NK603 maize,[2] [3]
which were accepted by EFSA as proof of the maize’s safety.

The authors found that all three publications
either satisfied or failed to satisfy the EFSA evaluation criteria to a
comparable extent. Yet only the Séralini study was judged by EFSA as defective
– and EFSA has only applied its criteria to Séralini’s study. The authors
concluded that EFSA’s rejection of only one of the papers – the Séralini study
– was not scientifically justified. The
authors also showed that EFSA's criteria did not represent standard practice in
21 other rat feeding studies of a minimum of 12 months duration.

Looking at the broader implications of this
study, only one of two possible conclusions can be drawn. Either numerous
defective long-term studies conducted over the past decades must all be
retracted, including studies published in FCT, or the Séralini study is as good
or as bad as all the others.